Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-12

Oh uOlnS Is Nc tnlnhs oesI Win nis o"n
property. People declaim against pro-
hlbitory laws as to the use OF liquors,
i saying they are sumptuary and interfere
with personal liberty. If this prohibi-
ton against borrowing money on the
homestead is not essentially sumptuary
in its nature, then it is difficult to define
what is sumptuary legislation The de-
tenders of the inhibition feature will, OF
course, reply that such q provision is
necessary to keep men from losing their
homes. The probibitionist is equally
prompt with the equally forcible answer
that it is necessary to deprive men OF the
means of getting liquor lest they drink
too much-and everybody knows that
man who drinks too much is of no &C.
count to himself or society-not to men
ton the family he may happen to have.
We are accustomed in this country to
declaim against the system Of primo
geniture and entail that exists in Great
Britain, and to declare that such an out
rageous and foolish law would not be
tolerated in the United States. 1t is true
that it would not, but 1t is equally true
that the much berated British lew is
hardly more open to Just and severe criti-
cism than the feature of our Texas home
stead law that forbids the family to util-
ize the home as capital. 1t is not an an
swer to say the home can be utilized;
that it can be sold if money is needed.
| OF course it can be sold: we have not
gone so far IN our patriarchal legislation
as to declare that q man may not sell
what is his own, provided that he can get
purchaser. But in nine cases out of
ten the man who desires to raise money
on homestead property does not wish to
raise the full value of his property; he
has no desire, intention or necessity for
parting with his home; he does not wish
to lose his hold upon 1t as he does when
he sells it; and in great many cases he
cannot, If he is willing to sell, dispose of
it save at sacrifice.
But Illustrations and arguments against
the law, as it now stands, might be cited
ad ininitum. Taken as whole there is no
sort of doubt that il works more
hardships than it provides blessings.
Where it keeps one family under their
own roof tree, because the husband
who is shiftless, reckless fellow, would
otherwise soon lose everything, it keeps
two active, safe men out of opportunities
that are open every day in state like
Texss-opportunities that would pay.
1t makes money high-priced and suspi
cious of investment in Texas. 1t ought
to be revised-a liberal, specific amount
of exemption, and the absolute repeal of
the provision prohibiting mortgaging.
And not only this, but the homestead
claim should be made matter of record,
that all men might see what was claimed,
and what was exempt under the home
stead claim. The homestead law should
be framed as benefcent provision, and
not as a premium to dishonesty.
As said above THE GAZETTE does not
desire to be misunderstood. We do not
intend that any one shall jump at
conclusion and say "THE GAZETTE is
opposed to homestead law, and wants
to take from the poor man the last chance
of holding his home" THE GAZETTE is
as much in favor of a liberal, reasonable
homestead law as anybody. But THE
GAZETTE contends that our Texas law is
in many respects HiberGl and uareason
able THE GAZETTE would do away with
sentimen; alism in such matters, and de-
sires to see law that will fill the dual
purpose of first protecting the citizen, so
ruthless creditors may not grind him
down into the dust, and yet estop the
rascal who Utilities q too liberal statute
to swindle the men who have trusted and
befriended him. Finally, THE GAZETTE
would have the citizen free to use the
home, if he desires to do so, as a means
of preserving his credit and lettering his
condition in life.